Copyright and repairs...

It's both sad and enraging that copyright laws are used to prevent people to repair devices they own, and effectively enforce planned obsolescence since there is no way to actually keep any of your devices up and running.

Since service manuals can be copyrighted, it means that companies can deny access to them by independent repair shops or just users that want to have the information. Which means that people outside the company, can't make any repair at all. Thus, giving the companies the chance to enforce planned obsolescence by making their products unrepairable after a certain point in time.

This is unacceptable, since the products we buy are our owned by us. We should have unrestricted access to the information needed to service the products we own, either by ourselves or by independent repair shops if we choose to take them there.

Most importantly, by allowing to those products to have a longer life-cycle expectancy the impact they have on the environment will be a lot less. By allowing the service manuals available to the public, it would greatly help to make electronics more sustainable since their life will be higher and there will be less need to buy replacements more often.

There is a real need to reduce as much as possible our waste footprint on our environment as much as possible, and planned obsolescence doesn't help at all. By making companies release their service manuals, we are ensuring that human activity becomes more sustainable over time by allowing longer life cycles and reducing waste.

Not only that, we are empowered to choose when to change our devices for new ones and what to do with them other than throwing them away. Donation of electronics can be more viable, since they could be serviced and put back into action for people that can't afford to buy new ones. This is specially true with computers, refrigerators and the like, where the price of a new one and a second hand one can be quite significant.

So, making repair manuals available for everyone to use is of the up-most importance in order to make human activities more sustainable, and to give access to more modern devices to people that otherwise would be left out.

If companies don't make their service manuals available freely available to all, we have to make them do it. The common good is far more important that their private profits.

Endless possibilities...

As the world becomes smaller thanks to the Internet, and other communication technologies, it allows for a faster exchange of ideas and information directly among the people themselves.

We are becoming less depending on intermediaries to hand us information, or to share with others what we love. In many ways, people are coming together to form communities around their common interests or to share tips how to make whatever they need or want. Modern communications technologies are empowering the people, so that they can do more by themselves or receive the information they need on timely manner.

Now, more than ever before in history, humanity can build a fairer and equal society. A society in which where people can aspire more based on their personal merits, by allowing them to meet the people they need to in order to make their goals come to fruition.

By allowing the world to become smaller, people gets to know more about other cultures and becomes to exposed to new ideas in ways. Not only that, people get to give back to the world their perspective, allowing for a real interaction where one is influenced by what they see while they can influence others at the same time. It's a two way road, where all take something while giving something in return.

We need to keep building so that the Internet keeps being the platform where people can come to meet as equals, and where we all can build a better world for everyone.

Time to replace...

It seems that I'll have to change my current smartphone is going to quit sooner than I expected, so I'm going to have to select a new one before it dies.

So, it seems that an Android handset is going to be the one I'm going for since one running Firefox OS or Ubuntu Touch are not viable because they are still some time away.

I've been keeping an eye on Samsung and Motorola smartphones for quite some time, and a couple of Sony's, and I've made out my mind that the selection will come out of whichever offers the best deal for me.

What I'm looking for, is one of the more compact size since I mainly want it to check my social media accounts and email. If I compose anything at all on the phone, it would be some short status updates or texts. The only other app I use constantly other than the browser, it's WhatsApp.

At the end, I need it to be portable while it allows me to keep connected to with those I care about. For me, a small to medium size smartphone does the job for me.

Bact to Linux Mint...

I've being using the Cinnamon version of Linux Mint for a couple of days now, and I've to admit that the whole experience has been a lot more enjoyable than I expected. So much so, that it's now my favorite Linux distro.

So far, I've found it easy to use and all the software I use on regular basis work well. Whatever didn't come with Linux Mint out the of the box was easy to find either on the web or on the software manager. Most importantly, it was easy to install. In fact is so easy, that anyone could do it without having any prior experience working on a Linux distro.

Another thing that I liked, is the fact the are several themes already installed if you want to change how the desktop looks. What I really liked it's accessible from the panel, along with other settings like settings for the panel itself.

I like how the Cinnamon version of Linux Mint is coming along, and I'm enjoying the user experience that it gives quite a lot. It's solid, quite easy to use, and with several options of user customization from the onset. I'd recommend Linux Mint to beginners and people who want to have a solid OS, that's easy to use and robust.

Most importantly, to anyone who wants to have a come to and join FLOSS movement.

Jumping to another distro...

I've been considering giving another Linux distro a try, and one that I haven't used before. The main reason to do so, is that I want to try something new while still using Linux.

Pear Linux is the one I'm the most interested in, mainly because it's based on Debian and Ubuntu. Which means that the main software I like is available, and it would be easy to install with my current know how. Also, jumping to it would mean that I've to learn some new ways to do things without to have to relearn how to do everything.

I'll look if another distro that catches my eye, if that doesn't happen Pear Linux will be the one I'll install. If any one has a recommendation, post it on the comments please.

After 2 years using Ubuntu, it'll be nice to use and experience another distro for a change. Which is one of the great things about Linux, there are new distros to discover if you ever feel the need for a change and new things to discover.

There is no single way to do things, there are several way to get to the same place.

Users should decide how many OS's are enough...

There are some people that don't see the point of having Firefox OS, or Ubuntu for phones, on the marking it to the market. They say that Android and iOS are more than enough, even going to the extent of saying that the Blackberry OS might be doomed to disappear out of irrelevance.

I disagree, I think that there is some room for more OS's. The real question is how many more can make it, and how make sure that all of them are built around a common set of open standards that allow for apps to run on whichever OS the users choose to use them with ease. Let the users be the ones who decide what OS is best for them, and to be free to jump from one to another as the user seems fit for his interests.

Android and iOS aren't likely to lose their dominance on the market, yet that doesn't mean that there isn't room for more OS's which are better suited for some users needs and tastes. Instead of asking if there is a need for a certain new OS, the question that should be asked is who might need or use it.

It isn't over until the market actually gives it's verdict, until then all is pure speculation. In my case, until recently Android was the OS I wanted to power my next smartphone, with Blackberry being a close second. Now, after seeing the first reviews of Firefox OS and Ubuntu for phones reviews Android is no longer the clear winner. Having the ability to choose from three OS's for the one that best suits me, is always a good thing to have.

So, let's stop all the pessimism about the having several OS options for our mobile devices. Let's start make it so users can have different offers at their disposal.

Open standards are the best option for the people's interest...

If we want to keep the Internet, and all computer related technology, free and open for everyone to have equal access to them we need to keep building on free and open standards. If not, we will run into a situation on which whoever has a patent over a standard can have the power to keep people out that at their will.

All standards should be open and freely available for everyone to use, even though some of the software using them isn't and people has to pay to use it. But even that software has to make use of those standards, so it can use files created using competing software. There is no valid reason for users to be locked into using a particular software at all, since the use of any software is something that has to be decided by the user itself.

Software developers should be competing by giving extra value, not by making users content or files incompatible to use on other platforms.

Just because some individuals might make wrong use of open and free standards, it doesn't mean that the majority of users which are doing the right things should be punished along by not allowing them to use their files on the software they prefer. Most of won't do anything illegal if we are given a way to do things legally, and open standards are the best way to give users that chance.

So, let's make the rules of the game clear using open and free standards. There is a need to let the people to be the ones deciding by themselves what they want.

Privacy on the Internet age...

As electronic devices, especially those with Internet connectivity, become ever more ubiquitous there several issues that become ever more important to address. On the user end, privacy is becoming a mayor contention point.

User's data private data belongs to him, yet many companies and governments have their eyes on acquiring it for their own purposes. For companies, and some private individuals, user's data is valuable in order to make a profit. They use it to target ads tailored made for particular users using their own data, or they can sell that data to third parties for their use.

On the government front, they can use the data to monitor people behavior in order to suppress our freedoms, by cutting communications or entry to particular forums. In some cases, they can use our data  to target particular individuals in order hinder their ability to communicate ideas that the government doesn't want shared.

That's why we need to be mindful of what information are we giving, and to who are we are giving it to. It's easy to think that all sites have the same levels of privacy, or that the wont share our data with third parties. That's not true, privacy levels vary from site to site widely. Because of this we need to be aware of what's the privacy policy for each of the sites we interact with, and only give them the information as needed.

Above that, we need to make certain that us are the ones controlling the Internet. If one entity comes to govern the Internet, us as users have the most to lose from it because we would have to play by their rules. The Internet is the collective property of the people, with only sites being owned by an individual or company. It should remain like this, so that truly free and unrestricted flow of communication among people remains open, and so that the people decides what they share and with who.

At the end, by keeping the Internet free we can ensure our privacy.

Free to install what we want...

There needs to be more pressure by the people to manufactures, so that they stops practices directed to restrict what they install on their computers. Once anyone buys a computer, that person should be able to decide what software will run in it.

Even if the user decides to ditch the software originally installed, and replace it, companies shouldn't have the right to prevent this from happening. To keep the original software or to replace it, is a choice that should be made only by the user. No one else should have say on what the user can run, or not, on any computer he or she owns.

Any attempt to lock down any device to prevent the user to change any software should be forbidden, since the users has the right to change any piece of software including the OS to meet their personal needs. Taking away the ability to do so, is taking away our freedom of choose among several options for the one that works best for us.

Instead of telling us that we aren't competent to know what we need, or that we need protection, information should be made available so we can take informed choices. We need to know, and have access to all the information we need to take the best decisions we can. There is no need to give us protection we didn't ask for, much less to lose our freedoms in order to be taken care of by third parties.

We are the ultimate judge on what to install on our devices, with companies and governments only giving us the products and information needed to take good decisions.

Community as an asset...

The value of FLOSS is not reliant on the software itself, part of that value comes from that community that develop and uses the software. Much of the value of a FLOSS project comes from the community that it creates around it, since this community is the main force that moves the project forward and develops it according to what they dim to be the best road.

In many ways, any FLOSS project is a reflection of the community around it. The more committed, dynamic and functional the community is, the better the project will be. The strengths and weaknesses of any given project are those of the community that was built around it.

The way a project moves, in any way, is a reflection of how the community works together to get things done. The better they work as a team, the software they put forward will be better. The bigger the project is, the more vital it's to have a community that knows how to work as team and contribute what they promised on time and shape. There is no other way to make great software, since no single person can coupe with the workload that would mean doing everything by himself.

That's why many times projects with promising ideas fail, because the community around it didn't manage to find an effective way to work toward the common objective. There are some other cases where a community willing, and able, to work as team don't get their act together because their project wasn't based on a solid or workable idea.

A strong, committed, and active community is one of the most valuable asset to any FLOSS project. I would rank it to the same level to the software itself, since both are interdependent. You can't have one without the other, that's why it's of vital importance to take care of the community that drives the project forward. There is a real need to listen to what the community has to say, and more importantly have an open communication line with and among it as a whole.

Not paying attention to the community, is one of the best way to ruin any project since losing it is a fatal shoot. Once you lose the community, is almost impossible to build it back up.

FLOSS quality...

There is a common misconception that if software it's FLOSS, it must be bad, poorly implemented or supported. Which is the case, but that goes for many closed sourced software projects as well.

It all comes down to the people behind the project that develops the software, not the model they work or license the software they code. It's the people that work on the project, and how they manage it, that determine how well done and implemented it is and how well the support for any problem or doubt will be.

There are several examples of great FLOSS projects that show how good can they get are Firefox and LibreOffice. Both are great software to use, are well implemented, and have good support for their users. They aren't perfect, yet they are constantly being worked to make them better.

So before you strike FLOSS out, check what offerings are out there for the need you need to fulfill. You might be surprised to find out that there is something that not only fulfills your needs better, but it's also quite cheaper and easier to used than the closed source counterpart. With the added bonus that FLOSS will give you more freedom and flexibility.

Let's keep in mind quality come from the people working on something, not from the thing itself.